There is NO such thing really as Standard Displacement.... I'll let that sink in for a while...

The best allegory I can come up with is Horse Power rating of Detroit V-8 engines circa 1970 - 1972. In those days, it was advantageous to show Horse Power lower than any unified dyno-testing result from HP at the rear wheels or crank-shaft ...if you follow me - because the US Congress and Insurance companies wanted safe low HP values for the consumer. SO - Miraculously, Detroit V-8 HP values shrank between 1970 and 1971-72... for sales dollars.

The parallel is the same for ship displacement. What is the displacement of a 'Treaty' 10,000 ton Cruiser of 1937? They went through the same fantasy machinations to show Low displacement (including out-right lies) for legal reasons, as Detroit Auto-Makers in 1971 to show low HP, for insurance and emissions ratings.

The point I am making is, IF you look deeply at where Standard Displacement figures come from, it becomes a maze of deceptions designed to defeat any treaty definitions.

So Standard Displacement Official figures are a fantasy. Where I got my figures from are US Navy Tables of Full load Displacement, meant to include maximum space allocation of stores including a full fuel load...no one can really lie about that..... So it becomes the only measuring stick that tells you something about the full capacity of a 'vessel' (in this sense I mean vessel as an object).

Right, you have the opposite to what DBB has. In your mod a Battle has a higher durability than a Fletcher. In DBB, which uses standard displacement, the Fletcher a higher durability despite both Battle and Fletcher having the exact same standard displacement. This is inherited from the stock database.

Am I misunderstanding you somehow? I know about and already have your durability spreadsheet and I do find it intriguing (I disagree with your armor scheme modifier however :p). I'm not sure why it's relevant here.

Okay, yes standard displacement isn't the "truth" so to speak. I'm not disagreeing with that at all which is also why I think your idea about using full load instead. Though different nations probably also differs there in what they'd accept in terms of stability/freeboard/what-have-you at max load it's still probably a better value than standard displacement.

Regardless, DaBigBabes clearly does use standard displacement to arrive at its durability value - no matter how flawed you may think that approach is. Generally something along standard displacement divided by 250 when it comes to combat ships. Within that context it is reasonable to expect that ships of the same type with the same standard displacement should have the same durability.

There's no clear reason why, in DBB, the Battle class should have a lower durability. That's why I'm a bit confused. I'm not suggesting changes to B-Mod, I'm suggesting a change to DBB. This is an issue of consistency within the DBB database, not a suggestion on how to arrive at the durability value to begin with.

ORIGINAL: cardas .....{snip} This is an issue of consistency within the DBB database, not a suggestion on how to arrive at the durability value to begin with.

Well, I hear ya, and I talked with John about that years ago..when we deciphered how original 2x3 came up with durability...aka 1 per 250. But I rejected that idea, while DBB decided to ADHERE to it regardless of shortcomings... all I can say

Fletcher and Battle differ because they simply got lost in the shuffle. There is no affirmative reason for the discrepancy. With thousands and thousands of data fields, there will always be hundreds and hundreds that are off, to some degree. There are entire swaths of things that weren’t even looked at because the original GG data was ‘good enough’ and addressing ‘every single thing’ involved too much work for too little return. Efficiency, within the time constraints, was the goal.

Standard tonnage is used because GG designed it that way initially and the resulting set of numbers, in terms of range, distribution, and result variance, is what his calculation methods are built around. The math primitives are simplistic; very little double precision and inadequate Weyl sequencing. Convergence is always problematic. Working within the program constraints, and evaluating/adjusting the response surface for better validity, was the goal.

Standard tonnage is not a bad basis standard. Its definition is simply full load, without fuel or reserve feed water. It is applicable to vessels other than warships through application of a calculation constant to the vessel’s light displacement, with adjustments based on ‘Navy Lt’ vs ‘USMC Lt’ vs ‘Builder’s Lt’ vs ‘Design Lt’. In other words, it is determinative, it is reproduceable, and it works.

John and Don intentionally kept Babes from being ‘official’ so that it could be used as a continuous and real-time feedback vehicle for adjustments and enhancements to engine/database interaction, without having to rely on the Matrix update schedule. Therefore, adhering to the requirements of the engine algorithms, despite their shortcomings, is valid technique. Almost all of the Babes tweaks and enhancements have been incorporated into ‘official’ releases, both in executable code and in data, so the technique appears to be successful.

We try to explain why something was done (and how it was done, if we can do so), in order to promote better understanding of the system. There are other solutions that may work as well and we do not discourage people from trying them. We do not censure people who choose to do things their way rather than ours. Would appreciate the same consideration … all I can say.

Right you are. As I've said before I fully understand that there is stuff that slips past the cracks with such a bit database. I'm just pointing out stuff that seems odd or inconsistent and I'll deal with it as you want.

Now that I've looked closer at it there's actually quite a combat ship classes that are +- 1 in durability compared to what you'd expect if you use standard displacement/250. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them all.

Some of these were probably intentional in stock. I could make a list of them but I'm not sure it's worth your time. It's easy enough to just use an exported .csv version of the class definitions and use Excel or whatever to find them. Still, if you want I could list them.

There's is at least one durability area where there's a big difference however. It's something I've noticed before but forgotten about since. The US Yorktown, Wasp and Essex class all calculate their durability using standard displacement/250. All other fleet carriers (UK, Japanese and the US Midway and Lexington) use standard displacement/285. This is inherited from stock and I have to imagine that it's intentional. I'm not too fond of giving the US carriers special treatment myself even though I can somewhat understand the rationale. The improved damage control the Allies gets should be enough of an advantage. I can imagine Allied players screaming bloody murder if their durability would be reduced though :p

I don't disagree that many lies were told, but most of the significant deceptions seem to have been rectified in the standard references such as Conway's. But notwithstanding it's a measure which is a product of applying Archimedes' principle, there is another aspect to this.

Using the standard displacement measure divided by 250 to get durability is something that goes all the way back to the original Grigsby dos game circa 1992. I suspect it is so embedded in so many places in the code that playing around with it might have unexpected consequences.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 5/11/2017 12:04:52 PM >

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." - Cdr Spock

Yes. MO is verifying all the tonnages and will run an excel batch with the calculation embedded. It will take some time to do all the tonnages, and then fix up all the little things with tonnage in the >150 range. Have to mask all the subs too. A pain, but what the hey …

I agree everything should be done the same way for everybody. I don’t think there will be too many complaints. If there are, I guess they will just have to eat cake.

Right you are. As I've said before I fully understand that there is stuff that slips past the cracks with such a bit database. I'm just pointing out stuff that seems odd or inconsistent and I'll deal with it as you want.

Now that I've looked closer at it there's actually quite a combat ship classes that are +- 1 in durability compared to what you'd expect if you use standard displacement/250. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them all.

Some of these were probably intentional in stock. I could make a list of them but I'm not sure it's worth your time. It's easy enough to just use an exported .csv version of the class definitions and use Excel or whatever to find them. Still, if you want I could list them.

There's is at least one durability area where there's a big difference however. It's something I've noticed before but forgotten about since. The US Yorktown, Wasp and Essex class all calculate their durability using standard displacement/250. All other fleet carriers (UK, Japanese and the US Midway and Lexington) use standard displacement/285. This is inherited from stock and I have to imagine that it's intentional. I'm not too fond of giving the US carriers special treatment myself even though I can somewhat understand the rationale. The improved damage control the Allies gets should be enough of an advantage. I can imagine Allied players screaming bloody murder if their durability would be reduced though :p

Durability flows directly into VPs gained/lost when a ship is sunk. A scenario dev who wants to represent that the loss of certain ships is more debilitating than the loss of other ships has no alternative but to fiddle with the durability value.

The devs consistently stated that they had to shoehorn the "objective" data to fit the constraints of the game engine (aka algorithms).

We can redo the tonnages, endurance, maneuver, fuel, for everything, in approximately the same way we do it for a professional version. It won't be exactly the same, because AE has constraints on the ranges and can't resolve a lot of things that depend on exponential calculations, but the data can be truncated and ported in pretty easily.

Received some excellent data on the RAN Grimsbys from The National Archives of Australia, Sydney/Melbourne; Records of Commonwealth Naval Dockyard, Cockatoo Island and Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, in support of the tendering for, construction of, and the trialling of vessels; Navy Office, Department of Defense, Programme of final trial [HMAS Swann, Yarra, Parramata, Warrego, indiv.]. I believe the updated specifications will satisfy.

Did the same for the RN and RIN sloops; Hastings, Shoreham, Indus, Hindustan, Bittern, Black Swan classes. UK data from The National Archives at Kew, and The National Maritime Museum, Greenwich; Records of Admiralty, Board of Admiralty, and Navy Board; Records of Royal Navy Dockyards; Records of Private Dockyards and Shipbuilders. Believe these will now also be satisfactory.

Very detailed data on USN four-stackers, gold-platers, DEs, and respective conversions from The National Archives; Records of the Bureau of Construction and Repair/Bureau of Ships, Record Group 19, Technical Records, detailing construction, launching, refitting, conversion, and corresponding sea trials of US Navy vessels (1902-1965). This collection also contains some wonderful manuals on definitions and measurement techniques used by the major naval powers, including trial data on UK and French ships that underwent refits in US Naval shipyards. Manuals and data consulted for the pre and post Washington eras, 1938, 1942, 1944 and 1945.

MO has dug out considerable information on the militarized vessels of the Gouvernements Marine. It appears these will have to be substantially redone. JWE agreed to knock out a few new art bitmaps. There are sufficient slots and bitmap positions presently, so the modified art can be drop-in replacements, but the existing art can be used if people don't want to hassle with it. The database pointers will work either way.

The GM classified the vessels into type categories. This is nice since they fall into easily defined classes. There are a lot of visual similarities in the fleet, but the classes differ in some important respects.

quote:

Gemilitariseerde schepen van de Gouvernements Marine

Opnemingsvaartuigen Hydrographic survey vessels Tydeman and Willebrord Snellius. Not very useful militarily. Used as receiving ships. They were temporary flying boat motherships but had neither petrol storage tanks nor a machine shop, just receiving ship type mess and berthing facilities.

Schepen van de Dienst der Bebakening en Kustverlichting: Werk- en bevoorradingsschepen WW1 vintage buoy and light tenders, salvage and harbor/lighthouse construction vessels. Workboat-type hull form and framing. These had enough hold capacity, deck space, and hoist/crane capability to work as net and naval auxiliary tenders. H. Zeeman, Castor, Pollux, Orion, Poolster, and Zuiderkruis. All pretty much one-off looking. Technically each in a class by itself, but Zeeman, Castor and Pollux are similar enough to be grouped together as a class. Armaments detailed for each individual ship.

Gouvernementsschepen van het type Aldebaran Station security (Bewakingdienst) and general purpose ships , characterized by being the first constructed in the DEI. Packet-type hull form and framing. There were 5 at 53.4 meters, Aldebaran, Bellatrix, Canopus, Deneb, and Gemma, displacing between 820-892 metric tons (Design Summer Light Water Mark). There were 2 at 56.5 meters, Eridanus and Formalhaut, displacing 996 and 1001 metric tons (SLWM), respectively. They had more accommodation space than deck space, so were used more as transports than whatever they were officially commissioned as. Armaments are given for each individual ship. The GM lumped them together, but really two separate classes, Aldebaran and Formalhaut.

Gouvernementsschepen van het type Sirius Station security (Bewakingdienst) and general purpose ships built for the GM by Ijselwerf in the Netherlands. An improved Aldebaran type equipped with a radio communication station, stores refrigeration and modern electrical systems. Packet-type hull form and framing. There were 2, Sirius and Wega, at 55.64 meters and displacing 1018 metric tons (SLWM). Specifications and appearance are similar to both Formalhaut and Aldebaran types. Can be added to either class but visually a better fit with Aldebaran class.

Gouvernementsschepen van het type Merel Next generation (diesel) station security and general purpose ships, also constructed in the DEI. Packet-type hull form and framing. There were 3 of these at 47.78 meters and displacing 600 metric tons (SLWM), Merel, Reiger, and Fazant. All had petrol storage tanks installed and were fitted with a machine shop to function as a flying boat tender (vliegbootmoederschip) for the MLD. Armaments are given for each individual ship. Separate Merel class.

Overige schepen van de Gemilitariseerde Gouvernements Marine Other one-off station ships, like Albatros and Rigel. Best just abstracted into the Aldebaran or Formalhaut class.

Tydeman, Albatros, Canopus, Deneb, Eridanus, and Formalhaut are said as having 1 or 2 3.7cm kannonen. A photograph of this weapon on Canopus shows it to be a Gericke.

Arend and Valk had a space to store a small seaplane on the aft deck. It was for searching out pirates, gun runners and opium fleets. The ship had to be calmly anchored and the plane lifted off and on the deck by a crane and winches. The planes were hardly ever used. There is no mention in reports and no photos ever show a plane on board.

Can't say I envy the crews on the likes of Canopus if that 3.7 cm cannon was all they had in an escort role. Wouldn't even want to fight a surface submarine with that. I didn't know that Arend and Valk were originally designed for drug policing either, though it does help to explain their superior armament compared to most of the GM ships.

As an aside about what you posted earlier about what MO said, specifically

quote:

A Bofors 12cm/L50 Model 1924 became a Ducth 12cm/50 W-F No.6 or a 12cm/50 No.4 if it was early from Sweden and like that.

This should be the Swedish M/24 as found on Ehrensköld on top, the Dutch No. 5 (I think) from Banckert/Van Nes below and finally the Swedish M/24C (shield excluded) as on Visby. Obviously not in 1:1 scale.

Now those images aren't really detailed enough to say for sure, but assuming they are somewhat accurate it doesn't really look like the Dutch gun is the same as the Swedish ones. The breech as an example is somewhat different. A lot of sources also puts the Swedish guns as being L/45 or L/44 with only some claiming it's a L/50. The Dutch guns on the other hand are always put down as L/50 guns. The muzzle velocity for the Swedish guns (from the official ammo registry) also gives credence for them being less than L/50; 22,5 kg common at 775 m/s or 21 kg HE at 800 m/s. That would be a very low muzzle velocity if they were actually L/50 guns.

Oh yes, Dutch guns are a real mish-mash of conflicting everything. MO is mostly using info from A.J.Nuyt and Stellan Bojerud on Dutch gun IDs and has a nice cheat sheet from AJ. It looks like guns were Bofors-made Krupp after 1919 and transitioned to HIH Siderius in the late 20s. Siderius relied heavily on Rheinmetall technical input, but also had ex-Krupp employees, so their designs show a lot of Rheinmetallish and Kruppish influences. Wilton-Fijenoord took over Siderius’ corpse, parts, facilities, most people, and went back to Bofors tech support, so things like breeches, recoil cylinder positioning, and such, look different again. According to AJ, all the WF guns used barrels by Bofors. Here’s MO’s cheat sheet.

Note-1, at least 17 pieces Krupp 7,5 cm L40 "No 2 and 3" were used on Gouvernementsmarine vessels in the East Indies. Or s. aut No 2 and 3? Note-2, total number of Bofors-Krupp 7,5cm L55 guns delivered was 35 (Fransson). Some guns may have been used to replace older 7,5cm guns, like the Skodas. Also KNIL by 1940 possessed 25 7,5cm L55 guns, mostly Bofors (the IJA in 1942 captured 14 Bofors 7,5cms on Java alone). Note-3, No 5 was a very short submarine gun model.

ORIGINAL: cardas This should be the Swedish M/24 as found on Ehrensköld on top, the Dutch No. 5 (I think) from Banckert/Van Nes below and finally the Swedish M/24C (shield excluded) as on Visby. Obviously not in 1:1 scale.

Now those images aren't really detailed enough to say for sure, but assuming they are somewhat accurate it doesn't really look like the Dutch gun is the same as the Swedish ones. The breech as an example is somewhat different. A lot of sources also puts the Swedish guns as being L/45 or L/44 with only some claiming it's a L/50. The Dutch guns on the other hand are always put down as L/50 guns. The muzzle velocity for the Swedish guns (from the official ammo registry) also gives credence for them being less than L/50; 22,5 kg common at 775 m/s or 21 kg HE at 800 m/s. That would be a very low muzzle velocity if they were actually L/50 guns.

I think you are right, they are likely different guns. The tech drawings for the primary gun on the Ehrensköld, Klas Horn, and Göteborg classes had the dimensions of the barrel at 5.3m, i.e., L44. The designation was 120/44 K/45 M24 (M24B, M24C, respectively). Would certainly explain the 800 m/s MV, especially as the contemporary British BL 4.7”/45 was very similar at 814 m/s.

The first 6 Admirals had 120mm guns from AB Bofors (No.4). Banckert and Van Nes had 120mm Siderius made guns (No.5). Early Siderius guns followed the Bofors-Krupp designs. The tech drawings exist and show the barrel dimension as 6m, i.e., L/50. Also, Bofors supplied the Dutch with a lot of 6m barrels for their WF 120mm guns, at the same time they were making 5.3m (L44) barrels for the Göteborgs and Visbys. They made a 5.4m (L45) version for the Ölands in ’47.

Quite possible that Bofors made a Bofors-Bofors 120/44 M24 for Sweden and a Bofors-Krupp 120/50 M24 No.4 for Netherlands.

I suggest REMOVING ALL squad weapons as separate devices - so no 37 mm mini-mortar, no LMGs, etc. Create a separate squad type for every branch of every nation - or perhaps several (they update by date for example). Lump together ALL the squad's weapon values according to YOUR theory of how that should be done. The game code will then "engage" the squad with all its weapons once per round of combat. This seems to work fairly well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Question in another thread that sparked thoughts on describing the concepts behind JWE’s data models for AE Babes. A new thread seems a good place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas Building upon your answer I still find it a bit odd that the 37 mm M3 has a higher anti-soft value than a 81 mm mortar (16 vs. 13). As an armchair general I'd value the mortar higher in an anti-soft role. On the other hand the mortars do get to bombard while the 37 mm can't do the same, so they aren't directly comparable. I don't know how to value the bombardment possibility vs. the higher anti-soft stat.

The difference is due to the 81mm mortar being an indirect fire weapon, while the 37mm is a direct fire weapon. Also, the 37mm is effective up to 200m, while the 81mm cannot engage till the target is (well) beyond 200m. Arty IF weapon stats need to account for things like HE filler brisance, HE %, casing steel, area of effect, AoE shape, variations with shell size, as well as standard fire accuracy and CEP.

The DF calculations are based on weapon ‘effectivity’ studies by the GRU, Army MSA, CPLA, in the Korean War time frame. Notably these include the vast majority of US/Japanese WW2 infantry weapons. The paradigms for IF and DF are different as are the corresponding game calculation algorithms, so all the curves needed to be tilted, or flattened, to both fit together at the transition points and to fit within the numerical constraints of what the code is doing, without undue model discontinuities. It is a manifestation of the old question; what’s better, a hand grenade at 100 feet or a shotgun at 10 feet? Probably it’s fair to reduce the 37mm to 15 and raise the 81mm to 14 (the AE code wants integers, grrrr).

The biggest problem with AE weapon values is that they are relative numbers calculated on the basis of the individual weapon system. The game code lumps everything together. There might be 30 odd 37mm in a unit. The game code will shoot them all (abstraction), whereas there might be only 2, 3, or 4 at the actual point of contact (reality).

The same is true for every other weapon, vehicle, squad, what-have-you. There is a sort of conceptual disconnect between having data for individual weapons and the 45 mile per hex game scale that compels stack-vs-stack combat resolution. This is why we really like having the Army TEM3 as the battlespace simulator. It functions on an individual platform level so having accurate relative weapon stats is not just nice, but necessary.

Nonetheless, AE seems to be fairly good at ultimate outcomes. This is good for modders since values can be tweaked quite a bit to conform with preferences.

quote:

Question in another thread that sparked thoughts on describing the concepts behind JWE’s data models for AE Babes. A new thread seems a good place. quote:ORIGINAL: cardas Building upon your answer I still find it a bit odd that the 37 mm M3 has a higher anti-soft value than a 81 mm mortar (16 vs. 13). As an armchair general I'd value the mortar higher in an anti-soft role. On the other hand the mortars do get to bombard while the 37 mm can't do the same, so they aren't directly comparable. I don't know how to value the bombardment possibility vs. the higher anti-soft stat. The difference is due to the 81mm mortar being an indirect fire weapon, while the 37mm is a direct fire weapon. Also, the 37mm is effective up to 200m, while the 81mm cannot engage till the target is (well) beyond 200m. Arty IF weapon stats need to account for things like HE filler brisance, HE %, casing steel, area of effect, AoE shape, variations with shell size, as well as standard fire accuracy and CEP. The DF calculations are based on weapon ‘effectivity’ studies by the GRU, Army MSA, CPLA, in the Korean War time frame. Notably these include the vast majority of US/Japanese WW2 infantry weapons. The paradigms for IF and DF are different as are the corresponding game calculation algorithms, so all the curves needed to be tilted, or flattened, to both fit together at the transition points and to fit within the numerical constraints of what the code is doing, without undue model discontinuities. It is a manifestation of the old question; what’s better, a hand grenade at 100 feet or a shotgun at 10 feet? Probably it’s fair to reduce the 37mm to 15 and raise the 81mm to 14 (the AE code wants integers, grrrr). The biggest problem with AE weapon values is that they are relative numbers calculated on the basis of the individual weapon system. The game code lumps everything together. There might be 30 odd 37mm in a unit. The game code will shoot them all (abstraction), whereas there might be only 2, 3, or 4 at the actual point of contact (reality). The same is true for every other weapon, vehicle, squad, what-have-you. There is a sort of conceptual disconnect between having data for individual weapons and the 45 mile per hex game scale that compels stack-vs-stack combat resolution. This is why we really like having the Army TEM3 as the battlespace simulator. It functions on an individual platform level so having accurate relative weapon stats is not just nice, but necessary. Nonetheless, AE seems to be fairly good at ultimate outcomes. This is good for modders since values can be tweaked quite a bit to conform with preferences.